Talk:Index of Articles
Updates Current through Pathfinder 9: Escape from Old Korvosa -- Yoda8myhead 06:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Current through Pathfinder 11: Skeletons of Scarwall -- Steelwhisper 10:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Current through Pathfinder 13: Shadow in the Sky -- Yoda8myhead 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC) Current through Pathfinder 18: Descent into Midnight -- Yoda8myhead 00:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Do We Need This? It seems to me that we could delete this index for several reasons. First, it seems that "articles" in non-Pathfinder sources, like Kobold Quarterly, or even information from Companions and Chronicles should be included here, but inclusion might prove difficult. Second, a lot of articles are placed in a category on fairly arbitrary whims. Should "Relics of Kazavon" be in NPC's & Villains or Historical Knowledge? Where do we place "Into the Black," "The Golden Goblin," or any of the upcoming planar articles? Finally, I find that indexes of this nature make a lot of work for us to keep up with and it's easy to fall behind, as evinced by us being almost six months off. We're also behind on the Monster index. We have tabled indexes of contributions by author which I also think might be too much, and I am considering moving them into the body of their respective articles instead of being a template. Is this an important/useful enough element to keep on the site? -- Yoda8myhead 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :One index that I think is a very useful resource is the monster index, and perhaps and index of the full deity articles. I don't know if the types of articles that are less serialised are necessary, though may be they could be cited under a further reading section of their relevant pages. --Vagrant-Poet 19:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :: I agree that the monster index is worth keeping, but I see nothing particular about the deity articles that would make them independent from other types. Why not then include geographical gazetteers, or monster ecologies and organization overviews? I'd rather not do Further Reading sections for two reasons. One of the design principals of the wiki is to write everything "in character" so that the articles themselves could be believed to be found in a book or reference in Golarion itself. This is both for suspension of disbelief and to steer people away from crunch, which is the antithesis of "in character." The other reason is that, if we're doing our jobs right, the articles should be sufficient enough to not require direction to other sources. Compiling these sources is sorta the whole point. Someone wishing to find more information on a given topic should be able to follow the associated citation to find the book and page from which the information came and can go there for further details. If someone wants to know about Calistria, they should search the wiki for "Calistria," read that, then follow the references to get more info, not be directed away from the wiki before being able to use it's services. -- Yoda8myhead 19:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC) :::That's a fair point, and I am updating the diety articles with references to their appropriate PF write up as they get released, so the citations will be in all of them once all twenty get written up. Okay. Also, I'll try to keep the 'in-character' ethos in mind. Which furthers my belief that the feats/traits sections be removed, when I first came onto the wiki I thought that would just include a list of classes/ races/ dieties and ethnicities, cultural stuff and stuff to help build and play a character in the world. --Vagrant-Poet 00:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) ::::I'm really liking the new layout, very helpful and useful.--Vagrant-Poet 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)